associate_sample_with_run

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if an association already exists, or any side effects on the run or sample records.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence and two parameter lines. It wastes no words and is front-loaded with the purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description does not mention the return value, which is missing since there is no output schema. It also lacks information about side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. Given the tool's complexity (two required params, write operation), the description is moderately incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds brief explanations: 'run_id: The run identifier' and 'sample_id: UUID of the sample to associate'. This provides some context beyond the schema, but lacks details like format constraints, examples, or validation rules.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'associate' and the resources 'sample with a sequencing run'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remove_sample_from_run' and 'clear_samples_for_run' which are inverse operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., sample and run must exist), constraints (e.g., association uniqueness), or conditions under which this tool should be used.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.